Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102696989 (She) in view of CA 2776669 (Cheng) OR US 2009/0004327 (Duan).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, She discloses a method of making natural coconut powder (title) including the steps of grinding the coconut meat which will provide grated coconut kernels (meat), adding 0.6-1.2wt% cellulase to a slurry of the kernels which will provide enzymatic hydrolysis. The result is a hydrolyzed liquid, thus the liquifying of the coconut kernels has occurred. The liquid is spray dried to form a powder (Production method bridging pages 1-2). Note that the claim requires the presence of kernels but does not preclude their presence in a slurry.
She does not disclose the use of enzymes in addition to cellulase.
Cheng discloses a method of producing hydrolyzed vegetable protein from proteinaceous vegetable material using enzymes (abstract) and notes that the vegetable may include coconut (page 5). Cheng discloses that cellulase is one carbohydrase that may be used and also discloses that any combination of enzymes from a list that includes mannanase, beta-glucanase and xylanase may be used and that the enzymes are used to hydrolyze carbohydrates and fibers in the vegetable material.
Duan discloses a method of improving the digestibility of a forage diet that includes vegetable material (Table 1) by treating the forage with enzymes to break down the forage and reduce carbohydrates. In other words, the enzymes break down carbohydrates in a manner similar to the breakdown of carbohydrates in She. The effective enzymes were found to be a combination including cellulase, xylanase, beta-glucanase and mannanase (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to supplement the cellulase enzyme of She with additional enzymes as suggested by Cheng or Duan that are used for the same purpose of breaking down carbohydrates in vegetable material with a reasonable expectation of successfully hydrolyzing the material.
Regarding claim 3, after the cellulase is added and the hydrolysis is completed, the slurry is heated to 110C for 10 minutes to obtain a hydrolysate (page 2). This is considered deactivating the enzyme by heat treatment.
Regarding claim 4, the method of She involves enzymatic hydrolysis resulting in liquid hydrolysate, thus the liquid is formed as a result of the enzymatic process. Note that additional enzymes are added which also contribute to the breakdown of the solids. She also discloses that the enzymes hydrolyze, destroying the cell wall of the raw material so that nutrients are fully leached and decomposed into small molecule peptides, amino acids, maltose, and glucose and avoiding protein precipitation, excessive pectin and excessive cellulose that affect the quality of the product (page 2). This breakdown of the solids serves to liquify the coconut material. This is consistent with the explanation in [0064] of the instant specification indicating that liquefaction may be the process of rendering solid components liquid by partial or total enzymatic hydrolysis.
Regarding claim 5, She discloses the method of making natural coconut powder discussed above, but does not disclose spray drying with an industrial or semi-industrial spray dryer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be appraised of spray dryers and depending upon the availability, cost, production needs, etc., one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to select a spray dryer whether it be small-scale, or industrial, or semi-industrial. The selection of the particular type of spray dryer would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 7, the claim requires the coconut kernels are unprocessed. She discloses breaking the coconut, collecting the milk, taking out the coconut meat, adding the milk to the coconut meat and grinding into a slurry. The instant specification does not give a definition of processing and does state that the kernels may be steamed [0045, 0069]. Thus, the application of heat disclosed by She to the coconut milk collected after breaking the coconut and to the slurry is not taken to be processing within the meaning of the instant specification and claims.
Regarding claim 8, the particle size of the powder is 80-100 mesh (150-180microns) which is within the claimed range of 1-1000 microns (claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, no fiber appears to be introduced in the method of She, thus the coconut powder is expected to have fiber only from coconut.
Regarding claim 12, the dried coconut powder has a moisture content of less than 5wt% which sufficiently specifies the claimed range of 0.4-10wt%. Moreover, the examples result in water contents of 3wt% (Example 1), 5wt% (Example 2), and 1wt% (Example 3).
Regarding claim 13, the coconut powder of She contains 2-5wt% of starch or maltodextrin, but no other materials are added in significant amounts, thus the final product is at least 90wt% coconut material.
Regarding claim 14, She discloses spray drying where the inlet temperature is 170-180C which is understood to be the spray-drying temperature. Alternatively, She further discloses that the outlet temperature is 70-80C. If the disclosure of She is considered to include spray drying between 70-180C, this temperature overlaps the claimed range and is prima facie obvious.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0100645 (Baensch) (cited on IDS filed 12/07/2023) in view of in view of CA 2776669 (Cheng) OR US 2009/0004327 (Duan).
Regarding claim 1, Baensch discloses isolating coconut rasps from coconut meat and after removing oil, subjecting the leftover meat to pulverizing and enzyme treatment with cellulase, beta-glucanase and hemicellulase. The addition of the enzymes would perform enzymatic hydrolysis and results in liquifying the coconut material to at least some degree [0021]. The product is spray dried and is expected to form a powder since the particle size of the coconut was decreased to less than 150 microns [0017, 0018, claim 1, claim 6].
She does not disclose the use of enzymes in addition to cellulase.
Cheng discloses a method of producing hydrolyzed vegetable protein from proteinaceous vegetable material using enzymes (abstract) and notes that the vegetable may include coconut (page 5). Cheng discloses that cellulase is one carbohydrase that may be used and also discloses that any combination of enzymes from a list that includes mannanase, beta-glucanase and xylanase may be used and that the enzymes are used to hydrolyze carbohydrates and fibers in the vegetable material.
Duan discloses a method of improving the digestibility of a forage diet that includes vegetable material (Table 1) by treating the forage with enzymes to break down the forage and reduce carbohydrates. In other words, the enzymes break down carbohydrates in a manner similar to the breakdown of carbohydrates in She. The effective enzymes were found to be a combination including cellulase, xylanase, beta-glucanase and mannanase (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to supplement the enzymes of Baencsch with additional enzymes as suggested by Cheng or Duan that are used for the same purpose of breaking down carbohydrates in vegetable material with a reasonable expectation of successfully hydrolyzing the material.
Regarding claim 5, Baensch discloses the method of making natural coconut powder discussed above, but does not disclose spray drying with an industrial or semi-industrial spray dryer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be appraised of spray dryers and depending upon the availability, cost, production needs, etc., one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to select a spray dryer whether it be small-scale, or industrial, or semi-industrial. The selection of the particular type of spray dryer would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claims 6, 11, and 13, no starch or maltodextrin are added and no other fiber or material is added in a significant amount prior to spray drying, thus the final product is expected to comprise at least 90wt% coconut material and the fiber present is only from coconut.
Regarding claim 8, as noted above the particle size was decreased to less than 150 microns and the enzymatic hydrolysis is expected to decrease particle size further.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0100645 (Baensch) (cited on IDS filed 12/07/2023 in view of CA 2776669 (Cheng) OR US 2009/0004327 (Duan), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 102696989 (She).
Baensch, as modified by Cheng or Duan, discloses fermentation for a period of time but does not disclose how the enzymes are deactivated. She discloses deactivation of cellulase by heat treatment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to end the fermentation process of Baensch by using a heat treatment as suggested by She with a reasonable expectation of ending the fermentation process at the desired time.
Claim 6, 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102696989 (She) in view of CA 2776669 (Cheng) OR US 2009/0004327 (Duan), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/239521 (Habeych) (cited on IDS filed 12/7/2023).
Regarding claim 6, She, as modified by Cheng or Duan, discloses the method of making natural coconut powder discussed above, but does not disclose the dried coconut powder being free from maltodextrin and starch. She teaches that maltodextrin or starch may be added prior to spray drying. Habeych discloses a coconut milk powder and recognizes that modern consumers are more and more averse to artificial ingredients such as artificial emulsifiers and maltodextrin, and other ingredients not familiar to them (page 1). Habeych surprisingly found that coconut milk can easily be spray dried, if the maltodextrin or starch, as carrier for the spray drying is replaced by coconut flour. Habeych also discloses that the coconut milk powder may be produced which has very little or no artificial or unauthentic emulsifiers, thickeners and/or spray dry carrier materials such as maltodextrin and/or starch, as for example denatured or modified starch. Hence, a coconut milk powder can now be produced which is 'clean label', i.e. without the addition of any coconut foreign ingredients, and which is 'all natural' and therefore much more appreciated by the modern consumer (page 5). It would have been obvious to substitute coconut flour for the maltodextrin or starch as suggested by Habeych with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a carrier for spray drying to form a coconut powder and also providing the consumer with a “clean label” product.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, She does not disclose the content of fat, protein and fiber. Habeych discloses a coconut milk powder with a fat content of 10-75wt%, a protein content of 1.5-3.5wt%, and an insoluble fiber content of 1-10wt% which is taken as exemplary of desirable proportions for a coconut milk powder. She discloses that a problem in the art is high fiber content and low solubility (page 1) and that their invention provides a coconut powder with good solubility. The use of cellulase would also be expected to break down the cellulose fibers present in coconut. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to decrease the insoluble fiber presence to improve solubility as well as decrease the overall fiber presence by breaking down the fibers via the enzymatic hydrolysis disclosed by She. While She does not give a threshold of the fiber, fat and protein contents, Habeych does indicate a low threshold for insoluble fibers, and one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to likewise decrease the overall presence of fibers as this is clearly the intention of She as an improvement over the prior art powders. Habeych also discloses a coconut milk powder with overlapping fat and protein amounts that are considered exemplary for the art and demonstrative of the ranges known to one of ordinary skill and thus would have been desirable amounts to provide in the final product. Habeych is also demonstrative of a similar product of coconut having relatively high amounts of fat relative to the protein and insoluble fiber.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the disclosure of She with regard to the spray drying temperature, Habeych discloses that the spray drying is done at a temperature from 110°C to 180°C and that this allows on one hand to efficiently dry the slurry into a powder, and on the other hand not to overheat the composition in order to prevent or minimize burning and other deteriorating effects (page 7). It would have been obvious to spray dry the coconut product of She at a similar temperature to efficiently dry the powder and prevent or minimize burning the material as disclosed by Habeych.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0100645 (Baensch) (cited on IDS filed 12/07/2023) in view of CA 2776669 (Cheng) OR US 2009/0004327 (Duan), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/239521 (Habeych) (cited on IDS filed 12/7/2023).
Baensch, as modified by Cheng or Duan, discloses isolating coconut rasps from coconut meat and after removing oil, subjecting the leftover meat to pulverizing and enzyme treatment to form a mash followed by spray drying as discussed above. Habeych surprisingly found that coconut milk can easily be spray dried, if the maltodextrin or starch, as carrier for the spray drying is replaced by coconut flour.
Habeych discloses that the spray drying is done at a temperature from 110°C to 180°C and that this allows on one hand to efficiently dry the slurry into a powder, and on the other hand not to overheat the composition in order to prevent or minimize burning and other deteriorating effects (page 7). Habeych discloses spray drying a coconut product to form a powder and discloses the benefits of spray drying at the same temperature as claimed. It would have been obvious to spray dry the coconut product of Baensch at a similar temperature to efficiently dry the powder and prevent or minimize burning the material as disclosed by Habeych.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objections to claims 2 and 10.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and newly added claim 14 have been considered but are moot in light of the rejections above. Claim 1 was amended to require each of cellulases, mannanases, beta-glucanases and xylanases. New art is relied upon (Cheng or Duan) which is considered to obviate this limitation as explained above. The spray drying temperature of newly added claim 14 is also addressed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights